Archive for the ethics and morality Category

This web post was motivated by an article in the LA Times, “Ten Commandments slab toppled” (June 29, 2017) regarding a newly installed monument on Arkansas capitol grounds and literally forced it upon all people.

Once again a few overzealous religionists who have inserted themselves into US political offices (as in Arkansas) keep trying to prove to God that they are higher caliber believers by trying to impose their beliefs upon everyone else. Case in point, a multi-ton monument inscribed with the Ten Commandments placed on the Capitol grounds in Little Rock, Arkansas. The Ten Commandments, also known as the Decalogue, refer to the alleged injunctions conveyed by god to the Hebrew “prophet” Moses on Mt. Sinai (Exodus 19:1-25). This priest-written legend served as the basis for Mosaic Law of the Hebrews and is contained mainly in the Pentateuch (the first five books of the Old Testament.

The Arkansas Republican Senator, Jason Raperi, who sponsored the Ten Commandments Monument Display Act, spoke of the “history” that the monument allegedly represents. Unfortunately, what he referred to as “history” is more accurately religious tradition which is based solely upon priestly writings penned two or three thousand years ago–a timeframe in which it was common belief that Earth was the center of all Creation.

The timeframe generally accepted for Moses’ birth is c. 1576 BCE., but mythic characters are suspiciously hard to track down and other birth dates have been suggested. Moses is speculated to have been around 80 years old when he trundled off to the Sinai rendezvous with god. That would have apparently happened around 1500-1486 BCE if we use that accepted speculated birth date. Even earlier and during that period of time our solar family (especially Mars and Earth) was being buffeted by electromagnetic instability caused by the passage of a planet-sized comet’s movement through our solar system. In that generations-long time span many great cities of the world fell in ruins. The royal city of Ugarit, for example, was destroyed by fires; Troy, Knossos, even the great walled cities in the Indus Valley were destroyed; and many of the Phoenician trading partners with the Hebrews fell into decline due to the disturbances to Earth’s rotation. That instability did not abate until the 8th century BCE. The Roman Empire historians such as Pliny the Elder and Lucius Annaeus Seneca wrote about those earlier events and how interplanetary lightning exchanges had totally destroyed the “entire richest town in Tuscany.” Seneca drew directly upon Etruscan records for his accounts.

Verifiable history c. 2600 BCE. (in the Age of Taurus 4380 BCE – 2220 BCE) A ruler of Sumer (oldest known recorded civilization), named Urukagina, found so much immoral activity in his kingdom that he found it necessary to crack down on it. The king had a monument erected upon which was inscribed a long list of laws. A few of the injustices that Urukagina addressed included the unfair use by supervisors of their power to take the best things for themselves, the abuse of one’s official position, and the practice monopolistic groups to extort unbearable prices. Sounds like USA-styled Republicans were at work even then. This monument is regarded as the first ever recording of social reform, and it was founded on a noble sense of freedom, equality and justice. Interestingly, King Urukagina claimed that the laws were given to him by the god Nannar.

Approximately 875 years later (c. 1725 BCE, (in the Age of Aries) the Babylonian ruler, Hammurabi, would decree a similar code from which the Hebrew/Jewish myth of Moses and the Ten Commandments would in turn be fashioned. On the Babylonian monument Hammurabi was depicted as having received the laws directly from the god Shamash. The laws are noteworthy in seeking to protect the weak and the poor against injustices at the hands of the rich and powerful. Aah, if only those ancient gods were hovering over the United States Republican Party today.

Back to religious traditionEven priest-written scriptures admit that what we today know as the Ten Commandments are not as were allegedly given as instruction to Moses (Exodus 20). Biblical myth-makers adeptly covered this by saying that Moses broke the first list in a fit or rage when he returned to his followers and found them worshiping a golden calf (a hangover from the Age of Taurus). The second version of Commandments (Exodus 34) which Moses supposedly received (and which believers have long accepted as holy instruction) concerned entirely different matters, that being moral conduct, not Creation powers and how to use them.

The character of Moses is anchored in the Age of Aries (2220 BCE – 60 BCE) when the Ram/Lamb became the prime icon of faith. As a crafty way to indicate that the priestly tale did not give credence to prehistory teachings of Creation/cosmology once given using groups of stars (constellations such as Taurus) as inspiration the priest writers had Moses destroy the original teachings. These wily men who set themselves up to dispense the Creator’s orders for proper conduct then did what every cult and secret order group does: they first establish the rules of their “faith.” Thus the first three “commandments” allegedly given to Moses just happen to be about submitting and obeying an institutional system as conducted by self-certified administrators.

Of the Ten Commandments the first three (or four in some faith versions) stand out as operational demands made by any cult operation. 1) Thou shalt have no other gods before me. 2) Thou shalt not make unto them any graven images. 3) Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain. And in some versions: 4) Remember the Sabbath day to keep it holy. These initial “Commandments” are clearly a pledge of adherence (submit and obey) to the authority of the priests, pastors, etc. more than they convey any godly enfolding or enlightenment. As for the rest of the seven (or six) remaining Commandments, the bulk are predominately couched in negative terms of “Thou shalt not.” How is this lack of constructiveness in any way spiritually empowering? Aah, if only religious faith systems were bound to a Truth In Advertising commandment.

Sin, the alleged estrangement from God due to transgressing God’s “known will,” is the age-old whip of faith system chieftains. The notion that some god could be directly or inadvertently offended and thus bring about disastrous consequences seemed plausible in the hostile conditions of primal forests or in the depths of gloomy caves. That trait, born of fear of the unknown, is apparently cast into the DNA of animate life as a self-preserving attribute. That natural preservation trait, unfortunately, can be mined like a vein of gold for crafty schemers.

By chapter three in the holy book of Genesis, after the the compressed account of Creation is dispensed with, the plot jumps rapidly into the introduction of sin with Eve nibbling fruit from the do-not-touch Tree of Knowledge. For this alleged sinful incident not only was Eve, Adam and the serpent given a death sentence, but all life forms were condemned to experience God’s continuous indulgence vengeance. Sin was then established as a vicious circle in Genesis 4:7 with God allegedly saying to Adam and Eve’s son Cain, “If thous doest well, shalt not thou be accepted? and if thou doest not well, sin lieth at the door.” Cain, not understanding the concept of sin–perhaps because mom, Eve, had already tainted all life with “original sin” anyway–by the very next verse (8) Cain kills his brother Abel. Now that is divine speed writing! But God’s earlier condemning judgement upon what he considered to be sin was impulsively made amendable by God setting a protective mark upon Cain’s head. Thus did “sin” become incorporated into “faith” and become the meal ticket for the CEOs in the business of belief.

The great pivotal moment in “sin history,” according to 8th century BCE priest-interpreted accounts, hinges upon the Lord’s alleged call for Abraham to sacrifice his son Isaac as a burnt offering to receive special blessings. In Jewish recognition of this momentous event of Abraham’s unquestioning obedience is celebrated with Rosh Hashanah, the Jewish New Year. Abraham’s devotion is held as representative of their faith system’s especial characteristics even through Judaism as such did not exist in that distant timeframe. Never fully explained is why the son Isaac was to be sacrificed:to stimulate Abraham’s greed? It is never clearly said why God would have asked for such a senseless act. Some devotees have suggested that it was simply a test. But if God is omniscient (all-knowing) what could God be uncertain about? As this story is depicted by priest authors, neither God nor Abraham inspire any spiritual admiration. And why would Isaac be such a spineless wimp? For some devotees Isaac is held to be the first Jewish martyr (again ignore the fact that Judaism as such did not exist in that timeframe). Functionally there can be only one purpose for this tale: since God, the personification of the Life Principle, would never condone such child abuse the story’s purpose in the priest-written texts is aimed to encourage submission and obedience of seekers to the priest-manufactured faith.

In the later priest-written book of Leviticus (18:6-7), the priestly lust for control is highlighted in the supposed shifting of sin guilt–with God’s okay–by transmitting personal guilt to some hapless victim. The alleged God-approved instructions read, “And he (a priest) shall take the two goats and set them before the Lord at the door of the tent of meeting. And Aaron shall cast lots upon the two goats: one for the Lord, and the other for Azazel.” We should note that the word “tent” in prehistory cultures was an occult reference to primordial energies of Creation which are to passed over into manifestation as matter forms. To retain their authority over the seekers the priests indulged themselves in the slaughter of one goat on the Temple altar, and sent the other ill fated goat into the wilds to be torn apart by predators. Or, depending on site location, the other goat was hurled by priests from a cliff to be cruelly dashed upon the jagged rocks below. The alleged reason for hurling the goat from a cliff? Supposedly Azazel was imprisoned beneath the cliff.

Nowhere is it ever explained in Hebrew or Jewish texts why the “Lord”–a self-admitted jealous god–would ever sanction such a custom of equal offerings, for by presenting identical offerings it is openly admitted that Azazel was indeed considered the equal to God. Consider also that the name Azazel is said to mean “God strengthens,” so the implication seems to be that one aspect of the creative Source, active as the Life Principle, cannot be Creative without the other (positive/negative generation). What this tale inadvertently reveals is that the Source-power cannot create and bring anything into existence except through a process of positive/negative exchange and interaction.

Even in this twenty-first century of space flights and instantaneous communications around the planet there are still Orthodox Jews who practice the bloody ritual of slaughtering hapless animal life (such as chickens) in an appeal to God for personal forgiveness. In Los Angeles, California, for example, there are Orthodox Jews who seek to sidestep ethical responsibility and save themselves from sin through victimizing defenseless animal life.

The Roman Empire “fathers” and “saints” of Christianity (such as Paul, Jerome, Augustine, etc.) enthusiastically took up the sin ensnarement tactic. As reworked by the “fathers” this aided the submit-and-obey features of the faith by relating how Jesus was sacrificed for the sins of the world (the Roman world). On that alleged occasion (as with Abraham) God did not provide any reasonable explanation for substituting Jesus for the sake of the world’s indulgence in sin. But in accepted texts, God so loved the world that he would allow it to sidestep immoral conduct by permitting his “only begotten son” to be sacrificed. It seems a rather bizarre game move if God hoped it would teach that everyone must stand responsible for their own acts if they are to evolve.

Why should this implied God-approved torture and slaying of his own beloved son inspire the world with any spiritual love or trust? Such a concept hinges upon a pre-Christian concept among societies of the Near and Mid East in which no rite was seen to hold more august power with the people than the sacrifice of the king or the king’s son for redemption of the king’s people. That superstition was impressed upon Roman Empire culture around 60 BCE when the Roman general Pompey (106-48 BCE) captured Jerusalem, which was then weakened due to a power struggle between two sons of King Aristobulus. Pompey installed one of the king’s sons–Hyreau–as high priest and took the other son, Antigonus (along with his sons), to Rome as displays of triumph. Eventually, however, it was Antigonus who became priest-king, and in his short reign before being taken by Marc Antony in 37 BCE he had slain his own two sons–presumably as sacrifice for the welfare of his people. The whole mystery ritual of redemption through such sacrifice then seemed to the Jews to have been played out again when Antigonus himself was publicly scourged, then bound to the stake, and then beheaded. The Jews accepted that his extermination was to redeem his people. It was this spiritual influence that colored the writings of Christianity’s early authors.

So the notion of using a scapegoat for dodging sin, as first promoted in the priest-written book of Leviticus, is subtly upheld throughout holy texts. Unfortunately, the only thing that is set up for the faithful in using a substitute for personal guilty is that they will always seek out ways to sidestep personal responsibility for themselves. However, passing the blame to another invokes only the illusion that such “sacrifice” frees one to fly to Heaven on a comfortable mattress of lies. Makes one wonder if such a Heaven can be trusted.

All scriptural “revealed” texts of man’s contrivance have a considerable amount of hatred ingrained throughout their scores of pages. Early on even God is portrayed as bubbling with a degree of hatred at Adam and Eve for having been lured by the tempting trees which God had deliberately placed as the focus of his garden. God chose to interpret the epitome of his creative handiwork as being disrespectful. so he drove them away from the only home they had ever known after heaping a heavy load of guilt upon them. The catch 22 to this original sin plot line is thus cunningly established early-on, which allowed the priest class a cautionary choke-hold on all subsequent generations of seekers.

All man-concocted faith systems have the tendency to pay tribute to themselves by routinely focusing on the differences and the dissimilar features and characteristics which give life its radiant and diverse range of Creation’s representation. The creative, energetic, sustaining force in which life is expressed is too often imagined in “sacred” accounts to be mainly concerned with the dilemmas of only one narrow selection of human species in one small region on planet Earth, and which just happens to represent their particular man-invented faith system. Such a narrow understanding of life’s intended diversity and spirit’s significance in relation to the rest of the universe has resulted in much carefully cultivated hatreds setting the stage for persistent and needless conflicts.

Reason and knowledge are seriously repressed when ego-serving faith systems labor to impose preconceptions of any kind to hover over people’s interactions with others. In man-structured faith systems, for example, seekers are indoctrinated and continuously conditioned with claims that it is only through their particular dreamed up rites and rituals that seekers may ever attain the favoritism of that Source-power which is personified as a human-like “God.” But the universe and Nature do not happen to reflect that severely restrictive faith system’s disposition, for the Life Principle active within that Source-power continually formulates and makes manifest a broad diversity and variety of life.

Promoting the idea of godly hatred toward any manifested life expression by that creative Source is the greatest act of blasphemy that can be indulged in by any organized faith system. An organized, highly structured hierarchical faith system inflicts orderliness, methodology, regulations, systematic posturing, inflexible rules, and narrow interpretations, most of which pretty much fly in the face of universal tolerance for variety and diversity within life experience. But all these man-contrived faith systems take advantage of the fact that even their life-limiting posturing is tolerated in the democratic flexibility of Creation.

When the all-embracing creative Life Principle is imagined to be in man’s image, there is left scant room for any believer to ever attain their intended higher potential. Since all man-concocted faith systems have long histories of indulging in each and every one of the alleged god-hated indulgences, the followers should remember that a spiritually wise man questions every extreme of passion. After all, the creative Life Principle installed a brain in humankind with the expectation that humankind would learn and practice rationality for establishing his own relationship with that creative power. It is alarming therefore that our personal connection to the Life Principle is so often negatively approached in the many man written “holy” books. For example, as is in (OT) Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Deuteronomy, Ezra, Job, Psalms, Proverbs, and Ecclesiastes hatred is barely disguised. And hatred is expressed in (NT) Matthew, Luke, Ephesians, Romans, Titus, 1 John, Hebrews and Revelations. And in the Quran there are well over one hundred verses of outright murderous hatred is encouraged.

Godly hatreds are cataloged as in Proverbs 6:16; “…six things doth the Lord hate: yea, seven are an abomination to him.” The things that are subsequently listed by the priest-author certainly cannot be assessed as moral or ethical conduct, and so the list of God’s imagined hatreds are actually extreme negative social interaction practices. Thus it is asserted by the authors that the Creator turns livid over: 1) a proud look; 2) a lying tongue; 3) hands that shed innocent blood; 4) a heart that deviseth wicked imaginations; 5) a false witness that speaketh lies; and 7) he that soweth discord among brethren.” (*It was from this list that Pope Gregory 1, “the great”: [590-604] elaborated upon the “seven deadly sins,” which a lower priest had commented upon years before Gregory but who received no credit.) All this carries a so-what attitude in Ecclesiastes 3 where divine insight is pretended by musing that everything has its appointed time, and thus lists “a time time to kill (3), and a time to hate “(8).

In the New Testament, Luke 14:26, even Jesus supposedly encourages hatred saying, “If anyone come to me and does not hate his father and mother and wife and children and brothers and sisters, yes, and even his own soul, he cannot be my disciple.” That is rather disturbing validation that what was recorded in those avowed “revealed” tales is not divine disclosure which was relayed as coming from an omniscient being to a few privileged priest-scribes. The words that were put into Jesus’ mouth by those power obsessed interpreters who had not witnessed the alleged incident is, however, the very principle which is routinely utilized in every cult style exploitation to keep seekers in subjugation.

And in the Quran there are, as noted, well over 100 verses which irresponsiblly summon Muslims to indulge in violent hatred and outright murder of any diverse way of honoring the Life Principle. Mohammad’s frequent “message” is the contention that everyone is an enemy of his spiritual tribe. For example, in the Quran 8:65 it is averred, “O Prophet, exhort the believers to fight.” No Muslim dares ask why, if Allah knows all, sees all and created all, he should have to relay his maintenance directives through a caravan merchant when he, Allah, could directly instill in every brain whatever he desired. The overused excuse is that Allah uses a prophet or messenger as a means to test seekers. This is the same empty “test” that God allegedly imposed upon Abraham by God’s alleged instruction to Abraham to sacrifice his own son Isaac as a test of devotion. But an omniscient god (all knowing) would have absolutely no reason to “test” anyone.

For the most part the three dominant faith systems of western cultures fail to understand that genuine enlightenment value is attained only from the tolerance for diversity and variety which the Creator intentionally instilled in all life’s expressions. That failing rests within all man-concocted faith systems which function under the corrupt premise of submit and obey all the faith system’s manipulative, self-serving stipulations. Their self-serving regulations are little more than disguised threats of brute force (by the Creator of diversity), not by true spiritual enlightenment, and it is brute force that is promoted and encouraged above the principles of harmony.

To the credit of humankind, however, that which is assessed as “spirit” within man is nonetheless sluggishly evolving among the broader masses. The allegations that the Life Principle, personified as a human-like God or Allah, would hold hatred toward any of the diverse and varied manifestations of life which “he” intentionally created are slowly evaporating under the pursuit of true enlightenment. Unfortunately it is Bronze Age tribal-style hatreds and cultured distrust of the Creator’s intended diversity which still flavor so much of all man-written “holy” texts and continue to negatively pollute “spirit” like malignant cancer cells.

Any man-fashioned faith system is basically designed as a power structure: it is not unfaulteringly assembled for the benefit of mass spiritual enlightenment but designed to assert the faith system’s authority. Like any commercial endeavor the service that is offered is gauged by customer demand, and commercial demand is stirred by advertising. In the faith business the product is basically a manufactured illusion: the merchandise offered is emotional assurance that a higher power looks after them–but that power supposedly functions only if the subscribers submit, obey and partake of all the rites, rituals and ceremonies that the self-appointed authorities have set in place for business use. Consequently those formalized procedures are cleverly fashioned to appeal to the ego of the seekers, not purposefully crafted to empower everyone’s personal connection (called “spirit”) to Creation’s Source.

Principles of righteous conduct are comparatively self evident to any balanced mind: seek understanding, control avarice, value individuality, honor love, demonstrate compassion, respect all life’s diversities, recognize that all things are interrelated, etc. For the most part the three networks of corporate styled “faith” systems of today’s western cultures choose to market the principles of “belief” by claiming to possess direct favoritism of a compassionate Creator-God. The general work ethic of these three sister faith systems, however, is to force their formalized concepts of God-Creator upon everyone else, which results only in constant conflicts. Thus for each of these corporate styled faith systems, their calls to devotion happen to exploit identical un-righteous principles that happen to resist Creation’s intended diversities. Achieving “dominion” over life’s diversity is the subliminal message buried within every man-written “sacred” text, and that faith system obsession is often the excuse for fundamentalists to annihilate whatever they fail to understand. That strategy is commonly exhibited in attempting to obstruct knowledge, curtail science, stifle natural desires, limit consideration for others, belittle intimate pleasures—in short, restructure everyone to a robotic religionist.

What is the architectural foundation for this? It is the concept of monotheism, a doctrine that there is only one Creator-God, who is characterized as male, of course. That concept permits erecting a business machine under the assertion that the all-embracing, all-inclusive power which created and sustains everything then unexplainably censored himself to play favorites with segments of the human species. This is a tactic which is then buttressed by utilizing man’s fear of death which further allows the charlatans to peddle their faith system’s insurance policy which is averred to offer seekers a glorious afterlife in a cloud-lined country club atmosphere–but only if they follow the rules.

The three self-serving monotheistic faith systems of western cultures could never survive as controlling powers if the peace and brotherly love to which they give much lip service was faithfully practiced. Instead the self-appointed representatives of Heaven incite the egos of seekers with false notions of exclusive access to the all-inclusive Creator. Peace and brotherly love happen to make for a limited meal ticket if such tolerance was actually allowed to be demonstrated by followers, for that would allow seekers to truly embark upon achieving personal alignment with universal powers. Such true freedom of spirit would deprive the self-proclaimed god-ambassadors of their public image as individuals who assert to have been heavenly approved for godly service. Each of these three corporate styled faith systems claim to teach love, tolerance and peace, but curiously after nearly three thousand years of these sugary claims the world has not yet witnessed any proof of such divine conduct on their part. Instead, all three of these by-the-book religions systems have to resort to whitewashing and disguising their bloody histories of violence, practiced prejudices, deceits, contrived theatrical ceremonies, and similar excesses of shameless spiritual pretentiousness. With these pretentions each of these faith systems have shamelessly taught seekers to hate the intended diversities of life expressions.

When some faith system then attains some political clout it inevitably slides into the sensuous “sins” of brutal power management which they legitimatize by quoting cherry-picked verses from their own priest crafted holy books. For example, does not the Hebrew Bible attest that God urged the Israelites, his “chosen people”, to slaughter the inhabitants of Canaan to attain the “Promised Land”–as reportedly executed by Joshua? And for the promoters of Gospel, was not Europe brought into Gods’s favor by use of torture and fiery destruction of life during the Inquisition by self-proclaimed representatives of the Prince of Peace? And does not the Quran avow that Allah (the merciful) sent hordes of angels to slay opponents of Mohammad’s possession of Mecca? Such is the deceptive propaganda preached by all “holy word” aficionados. The justification given for such acts of brutal domination is always in the name of a prejudiced holy spirit. Nowhere in such faiths is the truth ever acknowledged that each and every thing is manifested through and from one Source, and that each and all things are therefore interrelated and stand equal before that creative Power. There is, of course, no ego manipulation in teaching that, and thus there is little material profit in admitting the truth of impartiality before that Creative Source.

It has been noted elsewhere in these postings that regional conditions shaped and colored the spiritual teachings which were worked into the political governance of tribal styled stability. Thus today, to the Jews and Muslims, God is still promoted as something like a bellicose tribal leader, and to those “others” who are not of his implied favored people the Creative Principle supposedly decreed “cut them off.” For example, Psalms 118:10 (among many interpretations) “…all nations surrounded me; in the name of the Lord I will surely cut them off…” In Christian faith, which was conceived and nourished in the militant Roman Empire, God is viewed more as a commander-in-chief, with priests, bishops, ministers, preachers, etc. placed in charge like combat commanders over the lower ranks.

How glaringly different are the by-the-book dogmatism practiced in the western culture’s faith systems today when compared to the much belittled way the Pagans approached spiritual understanding. Pagan understanding was that spiritual things are highly personal and meant to be experienced by each person individually. The reason why Pagans did not actively solicit others to join their particular sect was the belief that the impulse for spiritual enlightenment must originate within the person himself. It was not viewed as a commercial subject. The Pagans knew that the first place of any person’s spiritual preparation had to arise within one’s own heart. Spiritual preparation, they understood, was not something acquired through exterior pressures. To the Pagan, regardless of which small sect he or she might be drawn to, it was always accepted that those in any superior position were like elder brethren who, just like the postulant, were sharing in a similar search for divine enlightenment.

Today such spiritual freedom has been placed upon the altars of corporate styled faith systems which reflect more spiritual greed than any dedication to true spiritual enlightenment. Modern day corporate structured faith systems seek only to impose dogmatism which reduces one’s inner spiritual yearning to hostage status that is held for ransom.

For some two to three thousand years the Holy Scriptures have been promoted through western cultures as being the ultimate in moral guidance for mankind. But anyone with genuine respect for moral conduct and ethical behavior toward their fellow man often stagger away in bewilderment after reading a few holy accounts.

Indeed, the opening chapters of Genesis brusquely kick things off with a highly questionable take on common ethics. The naive couple, Adam and Eve, the last of the Creator’s handiwork, were seemingly fashioned only for fun and games. Naked and clueless, they were placed in a deceptively paradisiacal setting–a setting which featured two breathtakingly beautiful fruit bearing trees as its focal point. Ah, but these trees were declared to be off-limits as a food source for the Creator’s not-too-bright last creations. This is clearly a case of crafty entrapment, not omniscient wisdom. But God was supposedly outraged when the innocent pair find the trees too alluring, and God declared that death is to be their punishment–just not for Adam and Eve, but for all matter-life forms! The first two humans within the walled-in Eden had absolutely no experience as to what self-aware life meant, so how could they have possibly comprehended what the sentence of death meant?

Ethics and compassion (qualities of conscience) soon got another below-the-belt attack in the “revealed” record of Adam and Eve’s sons Cain and Abel. Cain had become a farmer and Abel was a sheepherder. For the bounty that God had supposedly allowed them God expected both boys to gather from their hard work and bring him offerings in gratitude. That seems a tad materialistic for the Creator of all things, but what the heck. Abel slit a sheep’s throat and God found that to be extremely pleasing, but Cain’s gift, taken from the laboriously tended fields, was scorned by the Creator. Cain, of course, smarted at this bald-faced discrimination and in a jealous rage killed his brother. There were no actual criminal laws established in Paradise, nor had there been need for such in a family of four. So the homicide of Abel cannot be termed murder or even manslaughter. As punishment the testy Omniscient One banished Cain from his native land and Cain was commanded not to till the ground anymore. Apparently Cain was expected to starve himself to death. Or perhaps that was the Omniscient One’s plan for evolutionary success, for Cain became wonderfully successful as a builder of cities after that.How he populated them is never explained. Still we can’t help but wonder–is infinite punishment for “sins” committed by a finite being’s brief life really the caliber of an Omniscient Creator’s justice?

The same slack concept of holy moral/ethical conduct is continued throughout holy word accounts. Aggression is highly praised in divine tales, and war crimes pass as acceptable practice–if carried out for the security of a man-invented faith system. For example, under Moses’ generalship the Israelites are glorified for having killed off all the Midianite men, their kings and their prophet Balaam. Joshua, in turn, reveled in holocaustic violence in which even thousands of noncombatant women, children and aged were slaughtered. Deceitful David exterminated men, women and children in various stories, even sawing victims in half or hacking them to pieces.

In a number of holy stories characters are admired for indulging in homicide. The alleged “prophet” Elijah, for example, who allegedly killed 450 priest of Baal to “justify” Jehovah is held to be exemplary. And there is Elisha, Elijah’s successor, who called upon God to send two bears to kill children who had dared to mock his bald head. And there is the woman Esther who is praised for scheming the mass murders of Persians. And there is Jezebel who trumped up false charges against a father and his two sons so they would be slain.

Sexual misconduct, as long as it is strictly heterosexual, is routinely sniffed over. Lot and his two daughters, for example, merit no chastising for acts of incest. The maltreatment of Sarah whom her husband Abraham loaned out to the king for material benefits is brushed over. Isaac, their son, followed dad’s example and passed his off wife to the king as his sister. Good old David indulged himself in adultery and had the women’s husband set up for assassination at the war front. Dinah, Jacob’s daughter, too young to give legal consent, was defiled by her half-brother, Prince Shechem. How do these, and many similar holy examples teach seekers how they are to achieve a personal state of grace?

Strangely, impurity of spirit is a constant counterpoint played upon in holy tales, but the “impurity” is always about not following some man-invented routine of pretentiousness and mannerisms as being the only method to approach the Omniscient One. The impurity angle of one’s commitment to a man-made faith system is made the major concern in the three western corporate style faith systems. This springs primarily from the claim that just being born–expelled from a woman’s body–renders a person impure. It is never explained why, if the Creator is omniscient (all-knowing) and supremely merciful, “he” could not have devised a more practical way and less painful manner for multiplying new life. Nonetheless, that little oversight broadly allows for his self-appointed representatives to have steady employment in their self-devised theatrics. For example, to make up for their original impurity a man-made faith system may insist that one’s hair must be trimmed in a strict prescribed manner; or other faith systems demand certain foods must be avoided or prepared in a ritual way; and of course in all systems certain theatrics (rites, rituals ceremonies, etc) must be performed by those who aver to be God’s selected representatives.

Such is the enticement and lure of man-written “holy” books. The emphasis is commonly based upon following some man-devised routine as though it was magically set down in stone and perchance delivered on some mountain top. That, however, does not reflect the varied and all-inclusive nature of true spirit. Rigidity and inflexibility just happens to be the condition of something that is dead.